Thanks Bruno,
This is a very welcome addition to Autoconf. As a matter of fact,
some users had already suggested that we swallow your macros, and Paul
had suggested that we wait until you feel it is mature enough.
It seems that this day has come!
There remains mostly details to settle: the co
> On Fri May 24 12:35 2002 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > | While working on this, I noticed that the current autom4te code
> > | reverses the order of the `-I' options before passing them to m4. The
> > | documentation says:
> > |
> > | `--include=DIR'
> > | `-I DIR'
> > |Also loo
| I've proposed a solution that would solve this problem without
| removing any flexibility. Just to keep everyone on the same page, my
| current proposal is:
|
| * autoconf's search path should be:
| 1. any directories specified in `-I' options
| 2. the current directory (i.e., $
> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 24 May 2002 12:35:53
>> +0200
>> | Every other tool that I know of that accepts a `-I' option
>> (including | gcc, GNU make, GNU m4, and perl) prepends the
>> arguments to the search | path i
On Sun May 26 12:08 2002 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I'd like to find a means to preserve the simplicity of autom4te and
> autom4te.cfg. Maybe an additional -I like option would suffice. The
FYI, that's exactly how my patch solves this problem. Please let me
know what you think.
--
Mark D.
On Sun May 26 12:15 2002 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> | * autoconf's search path should be:
> | 1. any directories specified in `-I' options
> | 2. the current directory (i.e., $top_srcdir)
> | 3. the directories specified in $AC_MACRO_PATH (if set)
> | 4. the system-wid
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:08:54PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > From: Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 16:41:08 +0100
> >
> > I'm afraid the new version of functions.m4 doesn't work for me
> > (reverting from 1.60 to 1.58 allows test to pass).
> >
> > 143. acfunctio
Title: ¿Õâ! ¿Õâ!::
º» ¸ÞÀÏÀº Á¤º¸Åë½ÅºÎ ±Ç°í»çÇ׿¡ ÀÇ°Å Á¦¸ñ¿¡
[±¤°í]¶ó Ç¥½ÃµÈ ±¤°í¸ÞÀÏÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ¸¦ ÇÏ½Ã¸é ¸ÞÀÏÀ» Àç ¹ß¼ÛÇÏÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù.
> From: Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:36:14 +0100
>
> How's your bug? Mine is still there...
I assume that mine is still there too. I haven't had time to look lately.
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 26 May 2002 12:20:00 +0200
>
> If the problem is wrt -I, I'm fine with renaming it -i.
Yes, that would be an improvement.
Presumably -I would append the path names, but -i would prepend them,
so you could mix -i and -I with predictable results.
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Sunday, May 26, 2002 at 23:41:23
---
:: Come See What We Have To Offer. We Have Everything You Want! So Join Us Today, Best
:Of All It's
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 26 May 2002 12:00:27 +0200
>
> For safety, it would be good that we have two different macro names.
I don't see why it's safer to have two different macro names. I've
often redefined Autoconf-supplied macros with no ill effects, and I
presume a
12 matches
Mail list logo
